The Genre of the Gospels 47
The Genre of the Gospels
Nowhere in the New Testament is any of the four accounts of Jesus’ ministry called a gospel (ευαγγελιον [euangelion, G2295]; on Mark 1:1, see the introduction to Mark). "Gospel” and the cognate verb "preach the gospel” (ευαγγελίζομαι [euangelizomai]) are used in the New Testament, and especially frequently in Paul, to denote the message of God’s saving act in his Son (see, e.g., Mark 1:14-15; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:67). 74Perhaps some time toward the end of the first century or early in the second, titles were added to the church’s authoritative accounts of Jesus’ ministry. Certainly this was when "gospel” was first used to denote a work of literature. 75These titles preserve the stress on the singleness of the gospel by the way they are phrased: not "the gospel by Mark,” but "the [one] gospel, according to [the version of] Mark” (and Matthew and Luke and John). Justin, in the middle of the second century, is the first author to use the word "gospel” of the canonical accounts of Jesus’ ministry (Apol. 1.66; Dial. 10.2). It was probably Mark’s use of the word in prominent places in his gospel (e.g., Mark 1:1, 14) that led to its use as a literary designation. 76No books before our Gospels had ever been given this designation. What implications does this hold for the literary genre of the Gospels?
The question is an important one for the reader of the Gospels because accurate interpretation depends to some extent on accurate decisions about genre. The phrase "red rose” will signify something quite different in a botanical treatise than it does in Robert Burns’s line "O, my luve is like a red, red rose.” Similarly, Jesus’ walking on the water will mean one thing for the reader who takes the Gospels to be straightforward history and a very different thing for the reader who is convinced he or she is reading a myth or a midrash.
Modern study of the genre of the Gospels began with K. L. Schmidt’s decision to classify them as "popular literature” (Kleinliteratur) rather than "literary works” (Hochliteratur). 77As popular literature, the Gospels could be expected to follow the rules of transmission typical of such literature—an important point for Schmidt, who was one of the pioneers of form criticism. This classification also meant that the Gospels were to be viewed as distinct from the more literary biographies of various types prevalant in the ancient Greco-Roman world. From a slightly different perspective, C. H. Dodd viewed the Gospels (and especially Mark) as mirroring the early Christian preaching (kerygma) about Christ. As expansions of this kerygma, the Gospels were viewed rather more as the last stage in a continuous oral tradition than as self-conscious literary creations. 78These approaches to the Gospels led to the view that they could be fit into no ancient literary genre but were unique. Without necessarily subscribing to either Schmidt’s or Dodd’s view of gospel origins, many (perhaps even a majority of) contemporary scholars think that the Gospels do not fit into any established literary category. 79 But others are convinced that, while possessing some unique features, the Gospels share enough features with other works of the ancient world to be placed in the genre of these works. A number of specific genre identifications have been proposed, from Greek aretalogy (stories of the miraculous deeds of a godlike hero) to Jewish midrash. But the most popular suggestion, as well as the most defensible, is that the Gospels are biographies. True, the Gospels are quite different from the standard modern biography: they lack accounts of Jesus’ childhood development and education, his character and motivations, and chronological precision. But ancient Greco-Roman biographies did not always contain such features either. Indeed, the biographical genre of antiquity was a very broad one, encompassing works of considerable diversity. It was certainly broad enough, it is argued, to include the Synoptic Gospels. 80 If, however, we define the biographical genre as broadly as it must be in order to place the Gospels within it, the question as to whether the Gospels are biographies or are unique is little more than a question of semantics. It is clear that the Gospels share many elements with Greco-Roman biographies, the most important being that they portray the significant events in the life of an important person. But it is equally clear that the Gospels differ from most other Greco-Roman biographies: they are formally anonymous, which is rare for the biography; they lack the literary pretensions characteristic of most biographies; and, most of all, they combine teaching and action in a preaching-oriented work that stands apart from anything else in the ancient world. 81 We may, then, single out the similarities and call the Gospels biographies with unique aspects; or we may focus on the differences and put them into a unique genre, with points of contact with ancient biography (and with other genres as well). In either case, it will be important to recognize that the Gospels cannot simply be forced into the confines of an existing genre. The uniqueness of the Person on whom they focus has forced the evangelists to create a literary form that is without clear parallel.